Last week, behind-the-curtains activity by President Barack Obama garnered national attention when it was leaked that he had relayed a message to New York Governor David Paterson, requesting that Paterson quit seeking re-election. While this presidential vote of no confidence may seem particularly harsh, especially given that Paterson is a fellow Democrat and one of just two black governors nationwide, the ensuing reaction in the media has been seriously overblown.

Obama’s message was in no way out of line or unusual—presidential communication of this sort almost certainly occurs often: behind closed doors and without hype. He determined correctly, alongside his political advisors, that Paterson is particularly embattled—with 71 percent of New Yorkers assessing the governor’s work as either “fair” or “poor.” Paterson might not even survive a challenge in the Democratic gubernatorial primary and could very easily lose to a Republican challenger in the statewide race, especially if that challenger were to be former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, as some speculate.

Though from an Electoral College perspective, New York will almost certainly remain a Democratic state, the state has certainly elected Republican governors in the past and could certainly do so again. A Republican governor would put tremendous pressure on local Democratic leaders and the state legislature. Further, if Giuliani were elected governor of New York, he might pose a threat to President Obama’s own reelection bid in 2012. It is quite reasonable, then, for President Obama to communicate his concerns to Governor Paterson so as to avoid the many problems for the Democratic Party that an unsuccessful New York gubernatorial campaign could create.

Governor Paterson has refused to heed President Obama’s advice, however, and has committed to run for re-election anyway. He has every right to do this. Nevertheless, Governor Paterson’s refusal to the media to discuss his rationale behind neglecting Obama’s advice was not the best way to handle a very delicate situation. In deciding to run anyway, Paterson should have been more publicly deferential and respectful to the desires of the leader of the Democratic Party.

On the other hand, while his message was warranted, Obama might want to rethink the way he communicated it. Because President Obama campaigned so vigorously on a message of change, it is particularly off-putting to see him engaging in backroom deals that are more closely tied to old politics than to President Obama’s promised politics of the future.

That said, Democrats should not be totally disappointed in President Obama’s behind-the-scenes politicking because this means that at least someone is taking a definitive leadership role in a political party that has not always made the most savvy electoral decisions. President Obama must represent all of America, but he is wise to take an aggressive role in the positioning and organization of his party, not just at the nationwide level of government, but also at the state and local level.